Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Jan 14, 2015 16:24:00 GMT 1
However, during the annual press conference yesterday, John Leahy referred to the ALC order by calling the plane "A321LR" (from time 40:10 onward): I think Airbus just keeps it simple by referring to it as just another weight variant. "LR" is just a nickname, and not an official designation for the type. Note that Airbus has the A319LR too but it is also not an official type designation, but rather a longer range A319 with additional ACTs. |
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Jan 14, 2015 22:45:10 GMT 1
Mods, do you think we should rename this thread "A321neo 97t" as described in the press release from Airbus? A321neoLR is no longer an official term.
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Jan 14, 2015 22:46:09 GMT 1
I tend to agree, the A321LR is nothing more than another weight variant.
|
|
|
|
A321LR
Jan 15, 2015 12:59:28 GMT 1
Post by FabienA380 on Jan 15, 2015 12:59:28 GMT 1
Personally I like/prefer the LR distinction but I'd be happy to change if members feel the other way better?..  |
|
jonathan
in Convoy en route to Toulouse
Posts: 81 
|
Post by jonathan on Jan 15, 2015 13:06:56 GMT 1
LR is shorter and WE know what it means.
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Jan 15, 2015 15:06:08 GMT 1
Personally I like/prefer the LR distinction but I'd be happy to change if members feel the other way better?.. I personally prefer to call it using Airbus's official terminology. Note that we also have the A330 242t thread, which also gets 500NM+ range because of additional fuel tankage. |
|
jonathan
in Convoy en route to Toulouse
Posts: 81
|
Post by jonathan on Feb 5, 2015 19:49:35 GMT 1
On Forums4airports site somebody talking of Birmingham raised an interesting issue wrt cargo hold size v 757:
'There is still concern over the long term future of United when the 757's eventually go. The long range A321 will be available but the extra fuel tank takes up the space where cargo currently goes, would that be viable? '
Does anyone have any comparative figures and will that be an Achilles' heel?
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Feb 5, 2015 20:35:57 GMT 1
It's always a trade-off between payload and range, you cannot have it both ways. Like other aircraft, 757s cannot carry much freight when used at their maximum range. The same is true for A321s, no difference there.
|
|
quidam
in Preparation for Body Join
Posts: 118
|
Post by quidam on Feb 5, 2015 21:22:02 GMT 1
Of course A321 will have less space for cargo. But on routes from East Coast of US to UK there is no need for 3 ACTs, 2 should be ok. Airlines will lose some cargo revenue but will offset this with much smaller trip cost.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Feb 6, 2015 0:54:11 GMT 1
Of course A321 will have less space for cargo. But on routes from East Coast of US to UK there is no need for 3 ACTs, 2 should be ok. Airlines will lose some cargo revenue but will offset this with much smaller trip cost. What I mean is that when you operate at maximum range, as you are MTOW-limited (empty weight + fuel + passengers + luggage reach MTOW), it does not matter if you have available cargo volume or not - anyhow, if you have, you cannot use it. To illustrate this, the cargo volume advantage the 77W has vs A380 plays little or no role on ULH routes, where the 77W is MTOW limited and sometimes may actually carry less cargo than an A380. Therefore, when operating near maximum range, using cargo volume to carry fuel is no disadvantage (except tank and 'plumbing' weight). |
|
